Posted on by a.johnson1 · 4 Comments

Week 11: Article Response

In the reading, ACE Mapping Internationalization on U. S. Campuses, it introduced comprehensive internationalization and dissected six target areas for initiatives, policies, and programs. The six items in the model included: Articulated institutional commitment, administrative structure and staffing, curriculum and co-curriculum and learning outcomes, faculty policies and practices, student mobility, and collaboration and partnerships. I didn’t find it surprising that there has been a steady decline in associate and specialized institutions in administrative structure and staffing. While doctoral and baccalaureate institutions are likely to have an office, with adequate staffing, dedicated to internationalization, associate institutions do not have the same resources. I am taking a fundraising course this semester and lack of staff generates the same issues within that department. Fundraising and Alumni relations is a rarity in associate institutions because students typically use them as a transition method. Donors have the misconception that institutions like Kingsborough are well funded through the city and state and alumni choose to give donations to the school they end up receiving their bachelor’s degree from. Respectively, I believe small private institutions may have difficulty designating an office or influx of staff to focus on implementing internationalization programs.

Although the reading addresses the significance of building co-curriculum programs and activities on campus and restructuring the professional development of faculty to incorporate internationalization, therein lies a funding discrepancy. For programs and events on campus, would the funding come from the original budget or would a separate budget be developed for international purposes. I predict restrictions and employee pushback for both pathways. Using money from current programming will of course reduce the resources being utilized to fulfill successful events. Fundraising for an international program may work for the first few years of its inception, since donors love giving for innovation, but after a grant runs out, where will the money come from? It would be up to the school to make a budget cut to ensure the program continues. But wouldn’t that mean it wouldn’t have the potential to flourish? We have previously discussed how influential onboard and knowledgeable faculty can be to the success of study abroad programs. However, the reading mentioned workshops on internationalizing the curriculum and funding for travel to conferences declined. How can we expect faculty to make a commitment to internationalization and incorporate it into tenure decisions when financially U. S. institutions cannot provide awards for achievement and necessary professional development to continue learning, teaching and researching abroad.

I did notice a slight disparity between the two readings. The ACE report mentioned foreign language requirement is not enforced for associate and specialized students, which was odd to me because I thought it would be a basic fundamental. Spanish and French are the main languages U. S. students choose to study. However, the IAU Global Survey found that English, Spanish, and Chinese are the fastest growing foreign language courses students are enrolled in globally. If that’s the case, U. S. higher education institutions should remove French and make Chinese and Spanish the main languages available for study. It would make us better candidates for overseas Asian and Latin partnerships. Internationalization is currently used as a revenue source, but the main objective should be on nurturing student learning and develop international competencies that allow students to blend, function, and succeed in a globalized world.

 

 

 

 

Posted on by a.ilazarova · 2 Comments

W11- International Higher Education organizations

Internal association of universities is an organization that is looking to better higher education by discussing, examining and taking action for common interests of worldwide education. Internationalization for this organization has been at the peak of interest in the most recent years. Global education provides more opportunities as well as new challenges for the organization as well as universities all over the world. The 4th Global survey shows a big contribution of colleges in internationalization policies and procedures. The numbers of schools participating is growing and showing more inclination of importance to higher education in senior level colleges. However a vast majority of colleges still tend to face a similar issue when trying to expand internationalization ,and that is the lack of funding. This seems to be a reoccurring theme in not only international education but also in higher education generally . There is not much emphasis placed on higher education as much as is placed on other things. According to the White House US, only about 3% of taxes go towards education. And about .8% of that money is going towards higher education financial aid assistance. Most of the  taxes seem to go on main health care and national defense, which come out to about 50% of the taxes that are taken only federally.

Another article that discusses the Mapping of International higher education is U.S gives  more in-depth information on how popular internationalization is for the U.S. Overall findings of the survey show that internationalization has accelerated the schools in the recent years. The report also shines a view on curriculum, co-curriculum, and learning outcomes. The presence of having a foreign language presented for most colleges has become quite necessary and is involved in every program. Where Spanish and French tend to be the most popular languages taught in higher education universities. Another interesting topic that the article discusses is the professional development and funding opportunities however, yet again it shows that those opportunities are more research oriented. Considering that is the main drive that inherits funding for the schools and activities hence it is the one mostly funded and focused on.

Posted on by Natallia Kolbun · 4 Comments

W11 – Internationalization Surveys – Leadership, Funding, and Priorities

The Executive summary of the Internationalization of Higher Education: Growing expectations, fundamental value IAU 4th Global Survey and ACE’s Mapping Internationalization on U.S. Campuses are two very informative surveys that bring up a number of interesting and supporting facts about internationalization in Higher Education in the US and around the world.

The surveys present different points about the change and progress of Internationalization in Higher Ed institutions, some of which are supported by the data from both surveys, making those facts even stronger to believe and the need to be addressed by institutions. Since the number of them strongly stood out for me, I will list and discuss some of them below with my perspective on the topics and questions that have arisen:

  • One of the most noticeable points that were mentioned in both reports is the fact that internationalization strategies and activities seem to be driven by senior levels of leadership, and as most of the institutions reported by president of the institution. Per our discussion in class, the institution should not be waiting for the change of leadership to create and implement global strategic plan, but what if the leadership is the one holding it off?
  • Outgoing mobility is the most prioritized activity, while content of curriculum seems to be far from priority. As already discussed, creating international curriculum seems to be the best way to reach majority of the students on campus, rather than through outgoing mobility or research. On the other hand it makes sense why this is not a priority for the faculty, as they are not being recognized for working on internationalization curriculum and most institutions don’t provide funds, resources or tenure for doing it. As a result faculty’s motivation is not focused on creating international curriculum.
  • Institutions claim the lack of funding as the biggest obstacle in internationalization, while overall funding has been increasing over the years. So where are those funds being allocated? This leads to the next points:
  • Revenue generation as an expected benefit of internationalization ranked lowest in IAU 4th Global Survey, it might be true for the rest of the world, but in the US it seems to be one of the priorities in the most recent years (although not being claimed as one in the survey and stated to be the most important risk for North America). Even ACE Mapping Report states that the funding for international paying student recruitment has increased significantly, proving that US institutions are targeting tuition revenue from international students who have ability to pay. In addition Hanover Research states, “International student enrollments in the U.S. for 2012‐2013 increased by nearly 10 percent over the prior year, with some of the biggest changes coming from Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iran, China, and Brazil”. Higher Education institutions seem to prioritize bringing international paying students to increase tuition revenue, while leaving internationalization at home as the least priority activity.
  • Doctorate institutions seem to be the most active in leading internationalization in Higher Education. It is possible that it is due to the fact that doctorate institutions are also research institutions, and according to the IAU 4th Global Survey research is a number two priority activity in the internationalization of Higher Education. As a result, these institutions receive most amount of funding and spend most amount of resources on internationalization.

Overall, I really enjoyed these surveys, which triggered a lot of different thoughts about the statistics versus reality of internationalization in higher education around the world, but especially in the United States.

Natallia Kolbun

Posted on by A. Olly · 2 Comments

W11: ACE Surveys Internationalization on US Campuses

This weeks reading from the American Council on Education presented us with the results from a 2011 survey on the perceptions and actions of US institutions regarding internationalization. I found this article to be enlightening, as it covers many of the topics our class has covered this semester. ACE divided institutions into categories based on the highest level of degrees awarded. While this is an important element to consider when reviewing the data, I felt the lack of public and private institutional subcategories meant we were missing important information. For example, the CUNY Graduate Center is a doctoral granting institution, but its financial resources, student body and method of governance will differ greatly from a private, well endowed ivy league institution. However, the ACE survey will place them in the same category when analyzing results.

Some thoughts on topics and findings that stood out to me:

Associate granting institutions have overall lower levels of internationalization than those that award higher degrees. This is understandable when considering that many two year institutions are public community colleges. Community colleges are often tasked with serving the highest number of students with the fewest resources, and tend to have low retention and graduation rates. These institutions have the challenge of providing academic and support services to a vast range of students, and often do not have the funds of staffing to adequately deliver. With this is mind it is understandable that efforts at internationalization would not be among a colleges top priorities. ACE argues for the importance of internationalization at the associate level, noting that 40% of undergraduates attend associate institutions, and it is essential to bring global learning to non-traditional students. While I agree in the importance of internationalization, I question if an institution of limited funds and resources would better serve their students by focusing on retention and graduation efforts.

The section covering faculty policies and practices brought up a contradiction between internationalization efforts and the demographics of higher education faculty today. ACE discusses the important role faculty play in campus internationalization, specifically that those who teach and research abroad bring this broadened worldview back to their home classrooms, and are in a position to forge strategic partnerships. To foster internationally competent faculty, their institutions must organize their requirements around tenure, research, teaching and funding to assure that faculty can pursue opportunities to work abroad. But to what percentage of higher ed faculty could such concepts be applied? In my higher education finance and administration courses, we have discussed the main way to offset some of  high cost of operating a university, which is to replace full time tenured faculty with adjuncts. Adjuncts are not usually in the position to pursue and forge partnerships abroad. We can discuss the importance of globally focused faculty, but the tendency to hire adjuncts seems unlikely to reverse in the near future.

I was surprised by the statistic that over 60% of doctoral, master’s, and baccalaureate institutions provide scholarships or financial aid for international undergraduate students. This is where I would like to see a breakdown of public vs private universities. Does such aid skew largely toward the private sector, which may be well equipped to pay the way for desirable students? I am also curious about a breakdown of scholarships (for which funding may come from outside sources), vs institutional financial aid. What level of aid is provided? This survey would seem to place a one time, thousand dollar scholarship in the same category as a four year free ride.

The overall survey results indicate that internationalization efforts have increased between 2006 and 2011. Since it is now five years since the last ACE survey, it will be interesting to compare where we are at in 2016.

Just for fun: the New York Times recent education section published Study Abroad’s Seven Deadly Sins. We have discussed the cultural competence to be gained during study abroad. This article covers young adults instantly becoming the legal drinking age. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/10/education/edlife/study-abroads-seven-deadly-sins.html?ref=edlife

 

Posted on by Kristen.VanVleck · 2 Comments

W11 – Internationalization Surveys and the US’s Focus on Latin America

Both of the articles for this week summarized findings from surveys about internationalization.  Mapping Internationalization on US Campuses compares the data from a 2011 ACE survey across institutional types and historical data from past surveys.  While doctoral institutions clearly lead the way in most aspects of internationalization, this publication reported a positive picture of growth and expansion of internationalization overall in the US context.  For example, more campuses report having specific internationalization strategic plans and accompanying assessment methods than in previous survey years.  Since there was no change in the institutional policies requiring international experience for promotion or tenure, the authors recommend amending policies to factor in international experience for faculty.

The article named Internationalization of Higher Education: IAU 4th Global Survey presents the findings of a survey that was administered to institutions internationally.  This allowed the authors not only to identify global trends, but also see how perceptions, successes, and issues vary regionally.  In examining benefits, and risks of internationalization, they found that there is still a strong focus on student mobility.  The goals of internationalization align accordingly, including preparing students to succeed in a globalized world, and appreciation of different cultures.  The article spoke about many topics we have learned in class, including the importance of institutional leadership and funding challenges.  I thought the section about risks was interesting because despite the various benefits of international education and the progress being made in that area, there are still many obstacles to overcome including the perception, (and often times reality) that studying abroad is an elitist activity for students with financial means.  Regional societal concerns include brain drain in less developed countries, and solely economic motivations in North America.

I was also especially interested in the geographic priorities section, specifically for the North American region.  Based on the recent economic growth in many Asian countries and the high number of international students coming from countries such as China, India, and South Korea, it makes sense that Asia and the Pacific was the highest priority for institutions in North America.  I was also happy to see that Latin America and the Caribbean was the second highest priority for North America.  The reading stated that many regions, including Asia and Europe, identified their own region as the highest priority.  Since the Caribbean was grouped with Latin America, then North America really only consists of Canada and maybe Mexico.  I’m glad to see North American institutions taking an interest in their southern neighbors.

Since I studied and worked abroad in Latin America, I have always had an interest in the region.  A Huffington Post article reviewing the 2013 Open Doors Report noted that Costa Rica, Argentina, Brazil, Mexico, Ecuador, and Chile were among the top 20 destinations for US students.  The University World News article that Professor Choudaha sent us last week mentioned that Latin America was the top destination for Non-Credit Education Abroad, with Mexico and Nicaragua the first and third most popular destination countries respectively.  I think it is encouraging to see this increase in educational exchange with some of our closest neighbors, especially considering the various (and interconnected) ways in which we are linked including trade, immigration, tourism, the environment, and politics.